Madras High Court
S.Anantha Narayanan vs The Director Of Rural Develop on 12 December, 2018
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :: 12.12.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P. No.30853 of 2005
1 S.ANANTHA NARAYANAN ... petitioner
Vs
1 THE DIRECTOR OF RURAL DEVELOP
PANAGAL BUILDING CHENNAI-600 015
2 THE DISTRICT COLELCTOR
CUDDALORE DISTRICT CUDDALORE
3 THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
(V.P) KEERAPALAYAM PANCHAYAT UNION
CUDDALORE DISTRICT
4 THE PRESIDENT
VADAPAKKAM PANCHAYAT
KEERAPALAYAM PANCHAYAT
UNION CUDDALORE DISTRICT ... respondents
Writ Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India praying for a
Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the services of the
petitioner as Panchayat Assistant and consequently appoint the petitioner as
Junior Assistant in the Rural Development Department as per G.O.Ms.No.52
rural Development Department dated 20.3.1998.
For petitioner ... Mr.P.Ganesan
For respondents ... Mrs.R.Janaki, A.G.P.
For respondents 1 and 2
Mr.R.Chandrasekaran, for R-3
http://www.judis.nic.in
-2-
ORDER
The relief sought for in the Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as panchayat Assistant and consequently appoint him as Junior Assistant in the Rural Development Department as per G.O.Ms.No.52 Rural Development Department dated 20.3.1998.
2. The Writ Petitioner states that he was appointed as a part time Panchayat Assistant at Kanur panchayat, from 1.1.1998 in retirement vacancy. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the petitioner was appointed as a part time employee initially, due to passage of long time, his services would have been regularized by now.
3. If the services of the petitioner is already regularized, then the petitioner may not have any grievance. However, regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as recruitment to public posts has to be made by following the recruitment rules in force, by providing equal opportunities to all to participate in the selection process.
4. In view of the fact that the Writ Petitioner was appointed as part time Panchayat Assistant during the year 1998, this Court is not inclined to consider the relief as sought for in the present Writ Petition, at this point of time. If the petitioner has any grievance, it is left open to him to approach the Competent http://www.judis.nic.in Authority in the manner know to law.
-3-
5. With this observation, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.33814 of 2005 is also dismissed.
12.12.2018 Index: Yes/no tar To 1 THE DIRECTOR OF RURAL DEVELOP PANAGAL BUILDING CHENNAI-600 015 2 THE DISTRICT COLELCTOR CUDDALORE DISTRICT CUDDALORE 3 THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (V.P) KEERAPALAYAM PANCHAYAT UNION CUDDALORE DISTRICT 4 THE PRESIDENT VADAPAKKAM PANCHAYAT KEERAPALAYAM PANCHAYAT UNION CUDDALORE DISTRICT http://www.judis.nic.in -4- S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
(tar) W.P. No.30853 of 2005 12.12.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in